Dawkins' Foundation for Reason and Science (UK) found in a poll published today that almost three quarters (74 per cent) of 'Christians' polled agreed that religion should not influence public policy, while only about one in eight (12 per cent) thought that it should.

It also found that 92 per cent of 'Christians' agreed that the law should apply to everyone equally, regardless of their personal religious beliefs.

Other interesting findings in Dawkins' survey of a sample of the 54% who called themselves ‘Christian’ in a recent census included the following:

•62% favoured a woman's right to have an abortion within the legal time limit•61% agreed that homosexuals should have the same legal rights in all aspects of their lives as heterosexuals•46% did not disapprove of sexual relations between two adults of the same sex •23% believed that sex between a man and a woman was only acceptable within marriage

None of these findings will surprise evangelicals as it has long been evident that most people in Britain who call themselves ‘Christian’ neither have a Christian worldview nor accept biblical authority.

But I was more interested in Dawkins' statements about his own ethical values.

The Telegraph reports him as saying that ‘Britain is a secular society, with secular, humane values’.

He then goes on to complain about ‘Christian campaign groups’ which have ‘become increasingly vocal’ and are ‘demanding special rights for Christians to be exempted from equalities legislation, strenuously opposing all attempts to review the law on assisted suicide, (and) campaigning against further social advances such as equal rights for gay people to marry.’

So, either explicitly or implicitly, it seems that Dawkins ‘secular human values’ include the promotion of abortion, euthanasia, sex outside marriage and same sex marriage. No wonder he dislikes Christianity so much.

The Appignani Foundation was set up in 2001 by Louis Appignani with an endowment of US$2,500,000 to support ‘secular activities that will address significant, viable and long term human goals on our planet’.

These goals, we are told, ‘can be accomplished by encouraging creative free thought that spreads humanistic values and through a commitment to the belief that scientific research is the most reliable path to truth’.

IHEU is the ‘world union of more than 100 Humanist, rationalist, ethical culture, atheist and freethought organisations in over 40 countries’ with a mission ‘to build and represent the global Humanist movement that defends human rights and promotes Humanist values world-wide’.

Its ‘resolution’ page includes statements supporting abortion, euthanasia, population control and lesbian and gay rights.

Amongst the organizations under its umbrella is the British Humanist Association which embraces similar values on its website as follows:

•The British Humanist Association has long supported attempts to legalise assisted dying for the terminally ill.•The British Humanist Association’s position in regard to abortion is ‘pro-choice’. •We campaign for stronger equality laws against irrelevant discrimination, particularly in the context of the 'religion or belief' and 'sexual orientation' equality strands.

Now none of this is surprising and I have previously blogged on the Secular Medical Forum’s agenda to attack Christianity and promote abortion, physician assisted suicide and embryonic stem cell research.

But it is worth noting that Dawkins anti-Christian crusade is not just an intellectual attack on Christian belief. It is perhaps even more an attack on fundamental Christian values such as the sanctity of life and sexual purity. And, as the Apostle Paul reminds us in Romans 1, unbelief in the creator is inextricably linked to a rejection of the creator’s character and morality.

It is said that you can't derive an ought from an is. But this is exactly what Dawkins has done. On the one hand he tells us that 'DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music'.

On the other hand he builds a profoundly anti-Christian set of ethics seemingly out of a vacuum.

Jesus said, 'the world hates me because I testify that what it does it evil' (John 7:7)

Well isn't that interesting! I wonder if it explains some of Dawkins' anti-Christian passion.

Is his problem with the idea of a creator who holds us to account in fact more moral than intellectual?

'For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse...Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools… Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator...Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practise them.'

18 comments:

"stronger equality laws against irrelevant discrimination, particularly in the context of the 'religion or belief' and 'sexual orientation' equality"

flow naturally from an atheist worldview. Without a creator there is no reason to believe people are equal or deserve equal rights. In fact 'rights' don't even exist. Despite the fact that the atheist, like all of us, is capable of doing good, to do good (or even believe in good) is not intellectually coherent.

Belief in a creator is not necessary for belief in equal rights for all. I believe, however that is not the only reason I try to be good to my fellowmen. Your reasoning is as spurious as Dawkins'. You related to Peter? I see you share the same surname.

Where does the concept of human rights come from then? If we are just the product of time + matter + chance, why is there any reason to believe that people should be equal, or that indeed the strong should not lord their strength over the weak? That seems like an evolutionary principle; natural selection, survival of the fittest.

Ah - so Peter is Daddy, eh? Unsurprising then that you share the same spectacular lack of logic and reason. The concept of "human rights" does not need to "come" from anywhere, it's something that occurs naturally to most human beings (unless they are psychopaths or sociopaths, in which case presumably your Doctor Dad can tell us why some people are afflicted in that way). You might consider this "natural" instinct as "God-given", but an atheist might disagree - after all, many things come instinctively to all humans - sex and love and relationships, for example. Nobody needs to teach a person how to love or have sex - we just know how - because we're born with those instincts.

>> That seems like an evolutionary principle; natural selection, survival of the fittest.

So you set up a strawman and then argue against yourself! But it is indeed an evolutionary principle - and one we see every day. Belief is one thing, practice is another. How many people practise equality? Not a lot. So how does that prove OR "disprove" anything, including the existence of a Creator? Incidentally, the Bible does not teach equality - it endorses slavery and various other unsavoury practices. The Bible also says that no servant is greater than his master. No equality then.That's man-made.

James it is reasonable to assume but it does not follow necessarily that Peter is my father just because we have the same surname. Be careful with your logical deductions.

It is no surprise that the concept of Human Rights occurs naturally to most human beings; indeed the law is written on their hearts cf. Romans 2:15. We do not need to know where the concept of human rights comes from to use it, or indeed profit from it. The point is that it is intellectually inconsistent to believe that 'DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music', and 'something is wrong with the world that we need equality legislation in place'.

I didn't say anything about proof.

Jesus said 'Love your enemies'.

I'm in my first year at University studying Maths, and enjoying living for Jesus.

>> it is reasonable to assume but it does not follow necessarily that Peter is my father just because we have the same surname. Be careful with your logical deductions.

Neither an assumption nor a "logical deduction" - merely a guess. And something tells me I'm right, since you prevaricate like a politician and neither confirm nor deny it. Besides, I think your father (Peter) is of the right age to have a son in Uni - ergo he is your Dad. How's that for guesswork?

>> We do not need to know where the concept of human rights comes from to use it, or indeed profit from it.

Exactly. But you're the one that asked the question....

As for proof, you implied that the concept of human rights proves there's a Creator. So there you go contradicting yourself again. Take a leaf out of your Dad's book - he gets it wrong frequently (see his recent post on Dawkins and biblical slavery - inspired by our recent exchanges, I wonder), but at least he's consistent.

>> Jesus said 'Love your enemies'.

Which enemy are we talking about here? Do you mean me? :)

>> I'm in my first year at University studying Maths

Which Uni? And what do you plan to do with your degree? Teach?

>> and enjoying living for Jesus

Good for you. May you always do so. As for me, I'm a selfish bastard and live only for myself. I work for a large firm in London. What exactly do you mean by living for Jesus, by the way?

>> Neither an assumption nor a "logical deduction" - merely a guess. And something tells me I'm right, since you prevaricate like a politician and neither confirm nor deny it. Besides, I think your father (Peter) is of the right age to have a son in Uni - ergo he is your Dad. How's that for guesswork?

It's excellent, deduction, not guesswork. I like the way you've carefully considered the evidence and then made an informed decision rather than jumping in with assumptions.

>> Which enemy are we talking about here? Do you mean me? :)

No. You are not an enemy of mine. The point was that you said 'the Bible does not teach equality'. Love your enemy and love your neighbour are both concepts from which equality naturally follow.

I don't want to reveal too much of my identity/whereabouts on here, if you're genuinely interested in where I'm at university and the plans I have (or God has) for my life, shoot me an email at jonathan (dot) paul (dot) saunders AT googlemail (dot) com.

I am trying (emphasis on trying) to live every moment of every day to make Jesus look great and enjoy Him. My goal is to get to heaven (check) and take as many people as possible there with me. He helps me to do this by His Holy Spirit which lives in me. I am experiencing what Jesus said he came for:

>> Ah, sarcasm I see. So why don't you just confirm or deny it, instead of playing games. Surely you're not ashamed to admit to your own father.

Sarcasm about your attitude towards the claims of Jesus, not sarcasm towards your investigation into my lineage. The implication was that you could use the same techniques of enquiry to find out who Jesus is and what that means for you.

>> Good point. There's hope for you yet. Unless your Dad helped with the homework :)>> What makes you ask that? Are all selfish bastards unhappy?

You seem unhappy with my father, for a start. Most people I know use the terms 'selfish' and 'bastard' negatively.

What attitude? I never said anything about the claims of Jesus. Nor did I dispute that his claims are valid. Rather judgemental and holier than thou, aren't you?

>> The implication was that you could use the same techniques of enquiry to find out who Jesus is and what that means for you.

Patronising too. What makes you think I don't already know? Judgemental AND talking down to one's superiors (in age, if nothing else - since you clearly consider me your inferior in other respects).

>> You seem unhappy with my father, for a start.

Ah - so this is about your father, not me. Strange word to use in the context of an online discussion, no? Why would I be "unhappy" with your father - I don't know him. I merely disagree with some of the things he writes, and take the trouble to say so. Would you rather I NOT post a comment at all (that can be done, if that's what you wish), or simply roll over and pretend that everything Peter writes is spot on when it very clearly isn't? I enjoy a good argument. I also like reading his blog on occasion, or else I wouldn't be here (how's that for honesty, eh?). Sometimes I think he makes a good point - and have said so (go and read older posts). I can understand you find it hard to see your Dad being worsted in an argument (I would too, in your place, if that's any consolation. I think the world of my own father, as you clearly do yours) - but that's life. It doesn't mean I hate your father or am "unhappy" with him - you make it sound like we're married :) And you know what he thinks of same sex marriage, don't you?

Fear not, my lad - the only one I am unhappy with is myself.

>> Most people I know use the terms 'selfish' and 'bastard' negatively.

Jesus claims to be God, that the scriptures are true, that scripture cannot be broken, that God is just, and so thus that the old testament DOES teach equality.

If you accept that Jesus is God, you accept that his claims about scripture are true. You accept that there is no contradiction between God in the NT and God in the OT, and so although the law is fulfilled, the OT law was good and just for that nation under God.

Well, there you go. I shot you an email just like you said, and you've ignored me. Granted it took me 5 months (perhaps you've even graduated by now :) - but then I'm a procrastinator. Besides, I don't have the time to be playing around on blogs these days. Your call, young Jonathan. Don't patronise me though, I'm guessing I'm more than twice your age and a whole lot wiser - and I don't take kindly to folks talking down to me, even someone as well-intentioned as yourself. And yeah, the reason I took so long to write was because you annoyed the dickens outta me - just like your father. Too saintly by half. But that's life, eh? Your Dad didn't get where he was by pleasing folk, and neither will you :)

Another excellent post, Peter.I find it astonishing:(a) that so few people respond with comments on threads like this;(b) that Richard, bless him, should expend all his (slowly diminishing) energy and mental resources declaiming and ridiculing what is blindingly obviously true. The Apostle Paul did this for a while (ca AD 35 - and was temporarily blinded - http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+9:8-10&version=NIV ). While acquiring my 5 university science degrees, I came across nothing which would justify Richard's unmitigating and aggressive assault on the existence of the Creator Being who made him in the first place, and who will call him to account in the dimension we all enter when life ceases;(c) that Richard should ignore (or not acknowledge) the fact that many of the thousands of nuclear physicists associated with the Large Hadron Collider at CERN (which I visited last year) believe in the very matters which he persistently crusades against...

>> It is perhaps even more an attack on fundamental Christian values such as the sanctity of life and sexual purity

Is there any evidence that Dawkins is pro-choice or in favour of promiscuity? Some "anti-christians" seem to share the same values as christians - for example the two you have mentioned, namely chastity and the sanctity of life. This may perhaps be because many of these atheists are actually former christians (as Dawkins himself was, if I am not mistaken) who have in later years gone back on their faith. Obviously I'm not saying that christians are the only ones who believe in sexual purity and the sanctity of life - I have friends of other faiths who seem to share those same values. But some atheists would dispute that one needs to be a person of faith in order not to be promiscuous and respect human life.

James, I realize this is now a year and a half old as I pen this but I wanted to offer some thoughts on your contention regarding quantum physics from one of my favourite books.

"With the evidence for the beginning of the universe so strong, some atheists question the first premise of the Cosmological Argument - The Law of Causality. This is dangerous ground for atheists, who typically pride themselves on being champions of reason and science. ...the Law of Causality is the foundation of all science. Science is a search for causes. If you destroy the Law of Causality, then you destroy science itself.

Atheists attempt to cast doubt on the Law of Causality by citing quantum physics, specifically Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. This principle describes our inability to simultaneously predict the location and speed of subatomic particles (ie. electrons). The atheist's contention ... is this: if causality at the subatomic realm isn't necessary, then maybe causality of the entire universe isn't necessary either.

Fortunately for science, this atheistic attempt to cast doubt on the Law of Causality fails ... because it confuses causality and predictability. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does not prove that the movement of electrons is uncaused; it only describes our inability to predict their location and speed at any given time. The mere fact that we can't predict something doesn't mean that something has no cause. In fact, quantum theorists acknowledge that we might not be able to predict the simultaneous speed and location of electrons because our very attempts at observing them are the cause of their unpredictable movements! Like a beekeeper putting his head in a beehive, we must stir them up in order to observe them. Hence, the disturbance may be a case of the scientist looking at his own eyelashes in the microscope.

In the end, no atheistic theory adequately refutes either premise of the Cosmological Argument. The universe had a beginning and therefore it needs a cause."

Contact the author

Search this Blog

Kiwi, Christian and Medical

This blog deals mainly with matters at the interface of Christianity and Medicine. But I do also diverge into other subjects - especially New Zealand, rugby, economics, developing world, politics and topics of general Christian and/or medical interest. The opinions expressed here are mine and may not necessarily reflect the views of my employer or anyone else associated with me.

About Me

I am CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship, a UK-based organisation with 4,500 UK doctors and 1,000 medical students as members. The opinions expressed here however are mine, and may not necessarily reflect the views of CMF or anyone else associated with me.